Iran: WMDs Redux - by Stephen Lendman

Here we go again. Everything that goes around, comes around. We've seen it all before, each time fake. Nothing's different now.

Previous articles said US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development.

During his December 1, 1997 - November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. He carefully avoided anti-Iranian rhetoric and baseless charges.

After his departure, agency policy changed. IAEA was established as an intergovernmental scientific and technical cooperation forum. It was also to insure safe, peaceful nuclear technology applications. Initially independent, it now reports to the General Assembly and Security Council.

Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly Washington's. Doing so plays with fire, given nuclear technology stakes.

Lies launch all wars, including America's post-WW II. Israel's also.

Bogusly accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons refutes known evidence claiming otherwise.

Washington enlisted Yamano to lie. He didn't disappoint. Ahead of his report's release, he visited Washington for instructions. Exposing his duplicity is vital.

War must be prevented at all costs. Hopefully world leaders won't tolerate it.

On November 8, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told Press TV:

"There are some very serious questions (about Yamano's) study. It's obviously a basis for creating an atmosphere for launching an attack on Iran."

"My sources tell me here in Washington that they monitor Israeli activities, and they see (things happening) unabated. There are preparations for cancellation of civilian leave, not only these tests, but also fueling and arming missiles. It's building up to a crescendo!"

"I have not seen, and no one has convinced me, that Iran is going beyond just enriching uranium for the purpose of medical and other (nonmilitary) purposes."

"I'm really concerned that some accident is going to create another hostility."

He worries most about Israeli recklessness, regardless of whether Washington approves. Whether war winds target Iran isn't known. Only the fullness of time will tell.

Iraq - the Last Deception

Robert Abele discussed it in his book titled, "Anatomy of a Deception: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq."

Reconstructing public dialogue, he explained events ahead of bombing, invading and occupying Iraq. No casus belli existed. Inventing one followed. Alleged evidence was fabricated. The cradle of civilization was destroyed.

Abele discussed manipulating public opinion four ways relating to:

• Washington's imperial ambitions;

• major media support, cheerleading US wars;

• public ignorance, lack of critical thinking, and indifference; and

• violations of international law and ethical principles.

All wars follow similar patterns based on lies, misinformation and deception, including World Wars I and II.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber's book, titled "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq" covered similar ground, including how professional PR strategies, euphemisms, and jargon manipulate public thinking.

When evidence doesn't exist, it's invented. Later when discovered untrue, it's too late. People are persuaded to think wars make them safer. They never did and don't now. Wars beget more of them, benefitting profiteers and duplicitous politicians only.

James Bamford's book titled, "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" discussed destruction, detection and deception in three parts.

Part three covered manipulative Washington and Israeli duplicity used to justify attacking Iraq, oust Saddam, install a pro-US puppet regime, benefit Israel by removing a rival, and change the Middle East map.

September 11, the war on terror, WMDs, mushroom shaped cloud hysteria, manipulated intelligence, the Al Qaeda connection, and more hyped nonexistent threats to generate fear and enlist public support.

Patterns repeat in all wars. Only aggressors, targets, and language change. Aims and tactics are consistent. Death, destruction and human misery follow.

Definition of WMDs

Weapons of mass destructions (WMDs) include chemical, biological and radiological devices capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Wikipedia defines them as weapons able to "kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general."

"The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically."

WMDs - Pretext for Attacking Iraq

Iraq had no nuclear weapons. After Operation Desert Storm, UNSCOM inspectors destroyed its chemical and biological ones. In June 1999, chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter told an interviewer:

"When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO."

"Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It has 'no' access across the board."

"So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

Nonetheless, Bush administration officials, Ahmed Chalabi, other duplicitous Iraqis, fake intelligence sources, paid-to-lie experts, PR manipulators, and media scoundrels like New York Times writer Judith Miller falsely claimed Saddam maintained covert WMD stockpiles.

Britain's Dodgy Dossier cooked the books to fit Bush administration policy to attack, invade and occupy Iraq without cause, using fake intelligence.

Later evidence confirmed no WMD threat when it was too late to matter. Pre-war claims were false. Mushroom shaped cloud threats were bogus. Mobile biological weapons production was nonexistent.

Documents alleging Saddam bought Niger yellowcake uranium power were forged. He used aluminum tubes for artillery shells, not nuclear weapons. No evidence proved uranium centrifuge designs, development or production.

Nonetheless, lies justified lawless aggression against a nonbelligerent country posing no threat. Neither was Afghanistan, Libya, other post-WW II targets, and Iran.

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years. It's been targeted numerous times. America today covets its oil and gas resources. It wants its current regime replaced by another it controls. Bogusly calling Iran an existential threat, Israel wants a regional rival eliminated.

Whether or not war's planned isn't known. Discounting it ignores a threat too serious to ignore. Haaretz military affairs writer Amos Harel believes sanctions, not conflict, is likely, saying:

"The vast majority of the information in (IAEA's) report has been in the hands of Western intelligence agencies for a relatively long time."

America's National Intelligence Estimate refuted claims about an alleged nuclear weapons program and Iranian threat. Stiffer sanctions, not war, may follow Amano's report, Harel believes. Israel wants them to be "paralyzing, delivering a deadly blow to the Iranian banking system as well as to the country's oil industry."

Whether China, Russia and other nations will agree is doubtful. Washington pressure may impose them anyway.

National Journal writer Marc Ambinder headlined, "White House: IAEA Report Doesn't Change Assessment of Iran's Nuclear Ambitions," saying:

An unnamed senior administration official told reporters on a conference call that:

"The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it have a program about how advanced the programs really are."

IAEA, however, claims Iran carried "out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device" with no evidence proving it.

The Washington Post headlined, "Obama administration readies new Iran sanctions in light of UN report on Tehran's nuclear aims," saying:

IAEA's report wasn't "a game-changer." Nonetheless, unilateral sanctions and others with international partners are planned. Efforts to isolate Iran and harm its economy will intensify. War perhaps will follow.

On and off threats persisted for years. Current rhetoric is more shrill than earlier. Whether or not replicating Libya is planned isn't known. Iran represents a much greater prize.

In 2010, it had the world's third largest proved oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Canada. Libya has less than a third as much. After Russia, Iran has the second largest gas reserves. Washington covets control to deny enemies and rivals free access.

On Russia Today (RT.com), former CIA officer Philip Giraldi discounted IAEA's report, saying:

"I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out of the International Atomic Energy because the IAEA doesn't really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel."

"You may have a piece of evidence of some kind, but that piece of evidence is subject to your interpretation. When they saw aerial photographs in Iraq showing certain things, they interpreted those photographs to mean something which was not correct."

Iran Answers Critical Questions

Press TV said Iran's IAEA envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh offered Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members "critical information about Iran's nuclear program" to cool current hysteria following Amano's report.

Attending an extraordinary NAM session, he answered "20 critical questions" and related issues.

Question 1: After 4,000 inspection days, has IAEA detected "even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?"

No!

Question 2: Has IAEA found any nuclear activities and materials used for military activities?

No!

Question 3: "Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?"

No, given nothing introduced there until 2003!

Question 4: "Was Iran legally obliged to declare" Arak's (IR40) heavy water research reactor before 2003?

No!

Question 5: Under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak's heavy water production before 2003, was Iran obliged to do so for the IAEA?

No!

Question 6: Was Iran legally obliged until 2003 "to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UDF)?"

No!

Question 7: Was Iran legally obliged "to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand....?"

No!

Question 8: Did IAEA inspections detect any nuclear material or activity used as part of a nuclear weapons program?

No!

Question 9: Did IAEA's Action Plan announce "no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?"

Yes!

Question 10: Was IAEA obliged to submit "Alleged Studies" documents to Iran?

Yes!

Question 11: Did IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding submitting alleged evidence?

No!

Question 12: Did IAEA confirm its "Alleged Studies" authenticity?

No!

Question 13: What was Iran's INFOSIRC/711 obligation?

Per Paragraph III, it was to study the document and report its evaluation to IAEA.

Question 14: Was Iran obliged to hold meetings, interviews or allow sampling regarding the "Alleged Studies?"

No!

Question 15: Did Iran implement the Additional Protocol?

Yes!

Question 16: Did Iran implement the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement Modified Code 3.1?

Yes!

Question 17: When and why did Iran halt its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and Modified Code 3.1?

Voluntary implementation stopped after two and a half years because Iran's technical nuclear case was unfairly referred to the Security Council in 2006.

Question 18: Have all Iranian nuclear materials been measured and remain supervised to assure safe, peaceful operations?

Yes!

Question 19: Did Iran cooperate with unannounced inspections?

Yes, including on two hours notice!

Question 20: "Why does Iran deem" the Board of Governors and Security Council illegal?

Because its legal nuclear program was politicized. Hostile countries manipulated the IAEA, turning the agency into a US-dominated Security Council watchdog to deprive Iran and other developing countries "of their 'absolute right' to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute."

Other relevant questions include why nuclear programs of other countries aren’t as closely scrutinized as Iran's?

Why aren't nuclear armed and dangerous nations like America and Israel inspected?

Why haven't nuclear armed Israel, India and Pakistan been sanctioned for not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Why wasn't Iran given credit for signing and abiding by its provisions?

Why does IAEA let America, Israel and other Western allies bully Iran unfairly?

Why does IAEA under Amano do it?

Why isn't Iran's peaceful nuclear program accepted as fact when no evidence suggests otherwise?

Why are secret US and Israeli nuclear weapons development, production, and testing unmentioned and unmonitored?

Why doesn't IAEA fulfill its peaceful nuclear energy use mandate unpoliticized?

Under Amano, it's a Washington controlled tool. As a result, Iran's unfairly targeted while real nuclear outlaws freely terrorize other nations lawlessly!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.